CAV JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent State.

2. The petitioner is an accused in Sessions Case No.34 of 2014, which is being tried in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar. The FIR being C.R.No.I-218 of 2013 dated 07.10.2013 was registered before the Chandkheda Police Station, Gandhinagar for the offences punishable under Sections 120, 175, 179, 201, 232, 342, 346, 357, 376 and 377 of the Indian Penal Code.

2.1 The present petition has been filed for quashing and setting aside the orders passed under Exhibits 312, 318, 321 and 329 in Sessions Case No.34 of 2014 pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar and further prayed to allow exhibition of documents without disclosing the defence of the accused. It is contended that the learned Court was pleased to reject the prayer to exhibit documentary/electronic evidence. Thus, the petitioner under Articles 14, 21, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’ for short) seeks appropriate direction in connection with Sessions Case No.34/2014.

3. The petitioner states that after the completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed on 09.01.2014. The offence being sessions triable, was committed to the Sessions Court, Gandhinagar and was numbered as Sessions Case No.34 of 2014. It is stated that during January 2018, the prosecution examined the victim – P.W.27 at Exhibit-278 and during the course of examination-in-chief of the victim, the accused moved an application, Exhibit-312 with the prayer to exhibit the documents/electronic record produced at Serial Nos.1 to 8 on the ground that the admission is not disputed by the parties. Thereafter, during the course of deposition of the victim – P.W.27, the State moved application under Exhibits-317 and 318 for exhibiting few electronic evidences and it is contended that accused had supported the said application of the State by producing an affidavit below Exhibit-308, which came to be rejected and therefore it is prayed that the said electronic evidence is required to be exhibited as being admitted by both the parties.

3.1 It is further stated that during the course of examination of the victim – P.W.27, the accused moved an application being Exhibit-321 before the learned Court below with the prayer to exhibit Serial nos.1 to 4 undisputed by the parties. The accused further moved application below Exhibit-329 contending that the documents / electronic records produced at Sr. No.1 and 2 are required to be exhibited and not merely marked, as the admission is not disputed by the parties.

3.2 Being aggrieved by the orders dated 03.03.2018, the petitioner has moved this Court contending that the impugned orders against the accused is illegal, invalid and bad in law and the orders are unreasoned and without application of mind in connection to the provisions of law, therefore, are required to be set aside.

4. Senior advocate Mr. I.H. Syed along with Mr. Akash A.Singh, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner is a senior citizen and suffering from various health issues and further cannot be denied constitutional obligation in State for speedy trial. Mr. Syed referring to the provisions under the Criminal Amendment 2013, for speedy trial in relation to the offences under Section 376 and other specified offences, submitted that the trial is required to be completed within two months from the date of filing of the charge- sheet. Mr. Syed submitted that, the mandate under Section 309 of Cr.P.C. of speedy disposal requires the trial to be conducted on day-to-day basis. Mr. Syed, therefore, submitted that the learned trial Court Judge has not considered the said mandate under the provisions of law while rejecting the application and has not considered the right of the accused for the speedy trial.

4.1 Senior advocate Mr. Syed conten